I'm getting an aggregate multi-media native performance score of 118MPix/s. I see similar systems getting 155MPix/s. Same story in arithmetic (75 vs 85 GOPS).I have no issues in Prime95, OCCT, IntelBurnTest, ... My memory bandwidth of 22.6GB/s and cache/memory bandwidth of 89.5GB/s seem to be ok.My VCore was set to 1.2v with no issues but I've tried raising up to 1.2875v but that didn't help. Tried disabling C1E and EIST too.Temperatures are below 70°C and overheat protection is disabled.

With an OC'd system underperforming, the first thing to do is put everything back to stock.

If that does nothing, roll back your drivers to known good versions that you were using, say, 6 months ago.

If you still don't see any improvement, check your BIOS settings, run anti-malware, run monitoring software alongside stress-testing utilities to look for things like voltage drops, throttling, stuttering/inconsistent CPU and GPU load.

Some people ask me why I have always enclosed my signature in spoiler tags; There is a good reason for that, but I can't elaborate without giving away the plot twist.

There is no malware, spyware or viruses on my computer. I've checked that already.These low-level CPU benchmarks are not influenced by drivers.

I get an aggregate multi-media native performance score of 90MPix/s on stock which is perfectly in line with my OC score of 118 (perfect lineair scaling). Both scores are too slow though. I checked out an old review on THG. An i7 960 (3.2Ghz) scores 180 int / 135 float. At 3.65Ghz, I score 170 int / 128 float.

I got this CPU second hand about a year ago. Might it be defective? Did anybody ever experience a CPU to slow down because of a defect?

Have you stress checked your computer with Memtest and AIDA* to make sure that it's still working fine at your overclocked settings? * EDIT: See that you have already tested it with OCCT and Prime95, but don't see any straight memory tests. I presume you've checked that your CPU is running at the intended speeds with CPU-Z or Coretemp?

If you've already scanned for malware, I'd do as chrispy says and revert everything to stock, then rerun Sandra and see if you're getting what you think you should be getting.

Come to think of it, are you comparing results using the same version of Sandra as the numbers you're seeing online? From the Sisoft webpage:

Sisoft Software wrote:Q: The benchmark scores in the latest Sandra are different from earlier versions! A: The benchmarks change from major release to major release in order to keep up with new technology developments. Please compare results using the same major version of Sandra.

Still doesn't explain why you're getting framerate dips in CS:GO, though. Have you tried a completely offline game that's not server-bound to see if you get the same problem?

I'm comparing my results to the samples shown within the program. I assume they are from the same version.The THG numbers are from version 2011 (I'm using 2014) so maybe those numbers might not be comparable.

I didn't try offline gaming yet but that still doesn't explain the 30% deficit I'm seeing in Sandra.

I'll just assume that it's a broken CPU. I'll get a new (second hand) one and see what happens. Kinda strange though.I must have build over 5000 computers and repaired as many but never have I seen a CPU get slower from age (well I never used such an old computer for myself).But I think it's possible. This part is now 5 years old. 130 to 200W TDP during this period. Silicon fatigue?

I've had a similar experience with my current Intel chip. This Intel Xeon 1240 V2 brand new from Newegg was benching the same scores in AIDA64 the first month. Couple months after I checked again and noticed integer scores were the same but my Floating Point Unit scores had dropped and repeated low score on different runs. Clean install with only drivers for mobo/video card etc. changed nothing same thing. Thought it was something software related I might of installed but no.

When I built this computer a year ago, it consisted of a new motherboard and back then 4 year old CPU which I took from a broken computer. The motherboard had died so maybe it was supplying to much power to the CPU. Hard to know. Back then, I tested a couple performance metrics and didn't notice anything unusual. It's because my CS:GO started getting lower FPS that I got suspicious.

I'm getting 30% lower scores in Sandra's CPU benchmarks. Specially the multimedia one.Same BIOS from the start (F5d). I've noticed that it doesn't contain the latest microcode. Maybe I can try contacting Gigabyte and ask for an updated BIOS with the latest microcode but I rate the chance that Gigabyte would do this below 1%. I can try to inject the microcode myself but I'm a bit reluctant since I haven't done that before. Anybody first hand experience with that?

Processors don't "age" like that.They work 100% until they pop, excluding thermal throttling.

Motherboard BIOS and drivers (yes, drivers!) can affect things like Speedstep and power saving which reduces clockspeeds and max CPU load.I've also found that memory timings have a severe impact on performance if you're pushing them too far. Ignore what your motherboard thinks the RAM timing should be and look up the manufacturer's specs for your specific modules; Manually set the RAM timings to what they are supposed to be and see if you get any improvements.You can check before and after what timings/bandwidth they're running at with CPU-Z

Don't rule out two other options either:1) CS:GO could have been patched in a way that min FPS are now lower.2) The built-in benchmark results were done with a different chipset/motherboard/RAM setup to yours. Matching it may be impossible with your hardware.

If your chip really has "aged", it's not likely to be a problem with the processor. They just don't have half-working states. If you've exhausted everything else and it's still really bothering you, find a spare hard drive and do a clean install of windows and CS:GO before you've had a chance to update windows fully. There are thousands of security patches and updates that subtly change the way your PC executes code. Any one of these could be trading performance for security....

Some people ask me why I have always enclosed my signature in spoiler tags; There is a good reason for that, but I can't elaborate without giving away the plot twist.

Well actually processors do age but usually that translates into lower attainable OC frequencies. Well that's been my experience up until the Core 2 generation. Maybe from Nehalem on, it uses different clock domains to keep the processor stable internally. Just a guess.Tests like Sandra's CPU multimedia test are not influenced by drivers. They are written in assembler code running fully in the L1/L2 cache. Things like memory timings, chipset, drivers, ... have no effect on these tests. That's why it worries me that there's such a discrepancy.As I've mentioned before, disabling EIST had no effect on the results.I just saw that a Core 2 Quad @ 3.5Ghz is getting 125. I'm getting 118 ...

@ biffzinker, did you ever RMA that CPU to see if things improved with a new one? I'm asking because I'm not excluding the option that my board might be faulty even though mine is just one year old. These LGA1366 motherboards have a high failure rate.

First off, can you give exact specs of the RAM modules, including current CAS latencies and DIMM configuration? It may be possible that your latencies are abnormally high, and / or that you are not actually running in dual-channel mode either due to a BIOS setting or an improper DIMM configuration.

Secondly, can you provide specs of your hard disks? Are you running an SSD or Mechanical hard drive? What brands / makes / models?

Third, you mention your FPS is low in CS:GO - I assume this means CounterStrike: Global Offensive. What is your graphics card?

Finally, what is your Operating System? Windows XP, Vista, 7 or 8? Windows 8 has a really nice task manager which can show you all background services and how much CPU each is using. Possibly, there are background processes running while you are doing your tests. Do you have any antivirus software running?

First off, can you give exact specs of the RAM modules, including current CAS latencies and DIMM configuration? It may be possible that your latencies are abnormally high, and / or that you are not actually running in dual-channel mode either due to a BIOS setting or an improper DIMM configuration.

This is where I would start. As others have mentioned, lose the overclock first. Then I would update to the latest BIOS and make sure that your memory speed and timings haven't dropped for some unknown reason. I never let the BIOS automatically detect the RAM timings; I always specify them.

I appreciate the help but I can't keep answering the same questions. Please read all my previous posts.Forget about CS:GO. I'm focusing on the low-level CPU performance ATM.

I'll quickly answer some of the new questions:- All memory settings are correct (Triple channel, latencies, bandwidth, ...)- Zero CPU usage before and after the test.- 8 threads are being used.

I really want to narrow it down on solutions from people who had this complex issue or might have a serious clue (except of the basics proposed till now, no offence intented).

I've also checked my performance under Linux with the program HardInfo and compared with someone else (i7 920 @ 3.6Ghz). Very comparable.My CPU scores more or less the same except for 'FPU Raytracing' (12s vs 3.5s). Big difference. Huge difference actually.Broken FPU/SIMD unit? Hard to believe but all indications are there. The problem seems to be getting worse slowly (it took two months to get this bad).

If some of you have a similar config (Nehalem generation cpu), could you run Sandra 2014 (CPU Multimedia test only) and post me the results? Thank you.

You could try running Performance Monitor and graph CPU/memory stuff during a benchmark, see if anything is spiking / dropping there. Since you have EIST and C1E, wonky dynamic throttling is unlikely, but wonky turbo clocks are still possible (unless you have it set to run at 3.65 24/7).

Reiterating what other people have said: CPUs do not fail gracefully in the way you are thinking. A partial failure *could* manifest as your system being slow, but that would go in hand with extreme instability. Replacing the CPU may even seem to fix the problem, but what will likely have happened is you've just reset something.

I understand what you're saying TwistedKestrel. I've never had a CPU failing like this either.I've already checked with Performance Monitor. Everything seems fine. No drops. Running 3.65 during the test. Stock results are also too slow.Disabling C1E and EIST had no influence.

Looking at the first and third link, it would seem that your score of about 120MP/s is completely normal for SISsoft Sandra's FP Multimedia benchmark. Don't extraploate from a 965 result and try to apply it to your 920 because the 965 has a 33% QPI advantage and it seems to make a difference in the test you're worried about.

Last edited by Chrispy_ on Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Some people ask me why I have always enclosed my signature in spoiler tags; There is a good reason for that, but I can't elaborate without giving away the plot twist.

Rza79 wrote:I'm still awaiting some Sandra results you guys might want to share.

I'm still awaiting some answers to my questions above. Without knowing what your configuration is, test results by other people are not going to help you.

We need:

1. CAS timings2. Exact make / model of RAM3. RAM configuration - 3 x 4 GB modules? 1 x 8 GB, 1 x 4GB? Bank ID's?4. GPU - this does make a difference. New drivers can opt to share some of the CPU RAM, especially for certain games / mm apps.5. Disk type(s). Programs load from the drives. Levels load in CS:GO from the drive, and much data may be cached / stored dynamically (e.g. as you move around a map). The system's swap file also relies on disk. And check the SMART info on your drives, while you're at it. It could be that one or more of your drives in the system is failing, generating errors that the system has to mitigate. 6. OS?

There is a whole variety of scenarios that could occur as a result of failing bits of seemingly-unrelated hardware. Network adapters, audio, GPU, drives, DVD, PCI bus, etc. are all candidates to generate system interrupts and would become especially noticeable during CPU load.

If I compare my results with Techspot's i7 965 then I'm perfectly lineair in line with their results. Basically a perfect match.What does this mean? Sandra 2014 runs a wrong codebase on my system? Are the samples in Sandra 2014 not right?I need to do some more testing tomorrow. Bedtime now.

I would suspect of windows itself. Install windows on another partition and avoid updates and clutter. To make space for another Windows, you can reduce one partition with gparted, (which you can run from a "Live USB pendrive" http://gparted.org/liveusb.php if you windows partition is the single one).

As a side note, I also have an i7 920, and my win 7 started turning sluggish (I suspect of a MS update), so I turned to Linux, and it runs at lightspeed now. But you can't avoid windows to game for real.

Last edited by marraco on Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

If I compare my results with Techspot's i7 965 then I'm perfectly lineair in line with their results. Basically a perfect match.What does this mean? Sandra 2014 runs a wrong codebase on my system? Are the samples in Sandra 2014 not right?I need to do some more testing tomorrow. Bedtime now.

Sounds like your system is performing exactly where it should be, or even better (considering you're running @3.65 GHz and techspot was running at 3.88). I'd say Sandra's database results are incorrect; after all, nobody's probably checking up on i920 scores these days.

Problem solved? Or are you still worried about dips in gaming performance?

Well it seems my problem was twofold. First CS gave me an indication that there's a CPU performance issue and then Sandra 2014 confirmed it. Now Sandra 2009 tells the opposite. For quite some time i'm using the launch option '-threads 4' in CS because that gave me the best performance. But around two months ago I started having FPS drops into the 30's on some moments (mainly after a lot of server swapping, on servers with +25 players) and not being able to stay steady above 120 FPS. Well I didn't test enough yet but it seems that problem is twofold too.The reason I can't stay steady above 120 FPS is related to the threads option. It might be a programming mistake from Valve. I tried '-threads 6' (which gave me worst performance before) and it gives me up to 280 FPS and steady above 120 FPS. It feels like the engine was assigning all 4 threads to 2 cores and not understanding that I have SMT. Just guessing. Now it's much smoother with 6 threads. Where are the days that CS was the smoothest on one thread. The very low FPS problem seems to be related to, what seems to me, a memory leak. CS usually uses around 500-600MB. But the last time I had those very low FPS, the csgo thread was using 1.6GB. Restarting the game fixed it.Using Sandra 2009 was a good idea. It seems nobody cares anymore about the mighty LGA1366 platform. I'll get that 6-core. This machine is still very fast.

Ran performance monitor to see the size of csgo.exe during gaming and it averages around 1.7GB. So it's not a memory leak.Using 'threads 8' now, even better performance. Silky smooth. Better choke too. Seems one of the updates really screwed up the SMT detection of my CPU.BTW, csgo seems to spawn 57 threads according to performance monitor.

LGA1366 was a premium product aimed at enthusiasts, poor value for money but worth the premium for people who wanted the best. By the time Sandy Bridge rolled out, it had lost that status so the people who wanted top performance either sold their LGA1366 on or relegated them to secondary roles.

They were never mainstream, and half of them never made it back into the used market for reasons that tanker27 has just provided

Some people ask me why I have always enclosed my signature in spoiler tags; There is a good reason for that, but I can't elaborate without giving away the plot twist.